Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/26/2009 10:15 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) || Alaska Board of Fisheries | |
| HB117 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 117 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 26, 2009
10:23 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Alaska Board of Fisheries
Karl Johnstone - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 117
"An Act relating to locations of the meetings of the Board of
Fisheries."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 117
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF FISHERIES MEETING LOCATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EDGMON
02/06/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/09 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
03/26/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director
Board of Fisheries
Board Support Section, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the appointment of Mr.
Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries.
KARL JOHNSTONE, Appointee
Board of Fisheries
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As appointee to the Board of Fisheries,
provided background and answered questions.
THERESA WEISER
President
Sitka Charter Boat Operators Association
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
Mr. Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries.
JOHN BELCHER, Fisherman/Lodge Owner
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
Mr. Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries.
STAN MALCOM, Petersburg Charter Boat Association
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
Mr. Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries.
MEL MORRIS, Member
Board of Fisheries
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
Mr. Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries.
JOHN BLAIR, Southeast Alaska Guides Organization
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
Mr. Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries.
REUBEN HANKE
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
Mr. Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries.
RICHARD YAMADA
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
Mr. Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries.
RON RAINEY, Member
Kenai River Sportfishing Association, Inc.
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of the appointment of
Mr. Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries.
MONTE ROBERTS, President
Kenai River Professional Guides Association
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
Mr. Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries.
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
Mr. Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries.
TIM CLARK, Staff
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 117, on behalf of
Representative Edgmon, prime sponsor.
JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director
Board of Fisheries
Board Support Section
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the
discussion of HB 117.
DAN O'HARA, Mayor
Bristol Bay Borough
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 117.
ROBERT HEYANO
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 117.
HANS NICHOLSON, Chairman
Nushagak Advisory Committee
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 117.
FRANK WOODS, Commercial Fisherman
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 117.
TIEL SMITH, Resource Manager
Bristol Bay Native Corporation
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 117.
MONTE ROBERTS, President
Kenai River Professional Guides Association
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 117.
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 117.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:23:21 AM
CHAIR BRYCE EDGMON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:23 a.m. Representatives Edgmon,
Keller, Buch, Munoz, and Johnson were present at the call to
order. Representatives Millet and Kawasaki arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
^Alaska Board of Fisheries
10:23:47 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the first order of business would be
consideration of the appointment of Karl Johnstone to the Board
of Fisheries.
10:24:33 AM
JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director, Board of Fisheries, Board
Support Section, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
explained that the Board of Fisheries has seven seats of which
the terms of two seats are expiring at the end of June. The
incumbents currently in those seats are Karl Johnstone and
Bonnie Williams. Mr. Johnstone was appointed as a replacement
for a member who stepped down last fall. Mr. Johnstone's name
has been forwarded to the legislature for confirmation, but only
for the remainder of the current three-year term, which expires
at the end of June.
10:25:22 AM
CHAIR EDGMON added that should Mr. Johnstone be reappointed
after his term expires at the end of June, the confirmation
hearing today should suffice for that reappointment as well.
10:26:00 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 10:26 a.m.
10:26:45 AM
KARL JOHNSTONE, Appointee, Board of Fisheries, related that he
submitted his name for appointment to the Board of Fisheries
about a year-and-a-half ago and was passed over. However, later
Governor Palin's board staff contacted him in December regarding
whether he remained interested. Although initially Mr.
Johnstone said that he declined, discussions with his friends
lead him to advise the governor's board staff that he was
available. He was then appointed in early December, after which
he began attending the board meetings. Mr. Johnstone related
that his professional background consists mainly of his work as
a lawyer and judge. He retired from the bench in the late
1990s.
10:29:31 AM
CHAIR EDGMON then turned to public testimony.
10:30:05 AM
THERESA WEISER, President, Sitka Charter Boat Operators
Association, testified in support of the appointment of Mr.
Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries. She opined that Mr.
Johnstone makes a consistent, serious effort to understand the
issues from all viewpoints. Furthermore, he's very concerned
about good decisions that support sustainability of the
resources and is articulate and courteous to all and asks good
questions of everyone. Therefore, Ms. Weiser encouraged the
committee to vote in favor of Mr. Johnstone's confirmation.
10:30:48 AM
JOHN BELCHER, Fisherman/Lodge Owner, stated support for Mr.
Johnstone's appointment to the Board of Fisheries. He related
his belief that Mr. Johnstone's decisions would be based on a
well-educated understanding of the fishery issues. Therefore, he
encouraged the committee to vote in favor of Mr. Johnstone's
confirmation.
10:31:22 AM
STAN MALCOM, Petersburg Charter Boat Association, related
support for Mr. Johnstone's appointment to the Board of
Fisheries. He then paraphrased from the following prepared
statement [original punctuation provided]:
I had the opportunity to attend both the S.E.
Shellfish meeting in Petersburg and the S.E. Finfish
meeting in Sitka held earlier this year.
During both meetings, Mr. Johnstone through his
questions, comments, and decisions expressed a strong
commitment to maintain the sustainability of Alaska's
fishery resources.
His decisions seemed to be based on the facts and
showed no preference for one user group over another.
His questions on the proposals before him were
relevant and his comments articulate.
His interaction with the public, department staff, and
other board members was professional, courteous and
indicated his desire to fully understand the issues
and reach a reasonable solution.
I think with Mr. Johnstone's background, he will be a
valuable asset to the board process and I urge you to
support his confirmation.
10:32:56 AM
MEL MORRIS, Member, Board of Fisheries, testified in support of
the appointment of Mr. Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries. As
a member of the Board of Fisheries, Mr. Morris noted that he has
attended three meetings with Mr. Johnstone and has been
surprised with his knowledge and quick learning ability. He
opined that Mr. Johnstone would be an asset to the Board of
Fisheries.
10:34:29 AM
JOHN BLAIR, Southeast Alaska Guides Organization, spoke in
support of the appointment of Mr. Johnstone to the Board of
Fisheries. He noted that although his interaction with Mr.
Johnstone is limited to the last two Board of Fisheries meetings
held in Sitka and Anchorage, he observed the following. Mr.
Johnstone, he related, made a concerted effort to be well-
informed on the various proposals. To that end, Mr. Johnstone
performed his own research and analysis that went well beyond
that provided by the public and Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) personnel. Furthermore, during public testimony and
committee discussions Mr. Johnstone made an extraordinary
outreach to understand the differing points of view. Moreover,
Mr. Johnstone's actions, Mr. Blair opined, have demonstrated a
commitment to the sustainability of the state's fisheries
resources. Mr. Johnstone has also taken a fair and balanced
approach in terms of his public comments and decisions.
Finally, Mr. Johnstone's extensive legal background causes him
to follow the letter of the law in his duties. Therefore, Mr.
Blair encouraged the committee to vote in favor of the
appointment of Mr. Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries.
10:36:18 AM
REUBEN HANKE, speaking as an owner of a small fishing business,
related his support for the appointment of Mr. Johnstone to the
Board of Fisheries. Mr. Hanke noted that he attended two of the
meetings at which Mr. Johnstone served. At those meetings, Mr.
Johnstone was very well-informed and was extremely willing to
talk with the public. Furthermore, Mr. Johnstone is extremely
well read and knows the material. Mr. Hanke opined that Mr.
Johnstone will make a good member of the Board of Fisheries.
10:37:15 AM
RICHARD YAMADA, speaking as a 28-year lodge owner, related
support for the appointment of Mr. Johnstone to the Board of
Fisheries. He, too, attended the last two Board of Fisheries
meetings held in Sitka and Anchorage. During those meetings,
Mr. Yamada found Mr. Johnstone to be well informed, prepared,
asked probing questions that lead to a better understanding of
the issues, and was always in support of the sustainability of
the resources. Furthermore, Mr. Johnstone was fair and
objective in his deliberations. He, too, found Mr. Johnstone to
be very approachable.
10:39:19 AM
RON RAINEY, Member, Kenai River Sportfishing Association, Inc.,
stated his support for the appointment of Mr. Johnstone to the
Board of Fisheries. He noted that he has known Mr. Johnstone
since he lived in Arizona many, many years ago and continued to
know him for many years in Alaska. Mr. Rainey opined that there
isn't a better, stronger person than Mr. Johnstone, with his
background and knowledge of both the commercial and sport
fisheries. In conclusion, Mr. Rainey strongly urged the
approval of Mr. Johnstone's appointment to the Board of
Fisheries.
10:40:20 AM
MONTE ROBERTS, President, Kenai River Professional Guides
Association, related support for the appointment of Mr.
Johnstone to the Board of Fisheries for all the reasons that
have been mentioned.
10:40:44 AM
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association, said that he would echo all the prior comments. He
then noted that he attended the Sitka and Anchorage meetings of
the Board of Fisheries, and thus observed Mr. Johnstone. He
characterized Mr. Johnstone as an asset to the Board of
Fisheries, and highlighted that Mr. Johnstone is well informed,
prepared, asks great questions, knows the state, and has shown a
dedicated commitment to the resource and conservation.
Furthermore, Mr. Johnstone takes a fair and balanced approach
with all user groups and issues, he opined. Moreover, Mr.
Johnstone works well with everyone. Therefore, Mr. Gease said
he supports the appointment of Mr. Johnstone to the Board of
Fisheries.
10:41:42 AM
CHAIR EDGMON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
10:41:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked Mr. Johnstone to comment on ADF&G's
current management strategies of the Southeast Alaska herring
stocks. She also asked whether he believes ADF&G is proceeding
in the best way in which to protect the Southeast Alaska herring
stocks.
10:42:32 AM
MR. JOHNSTONE informed the committee that at the Board of
Fisheries hearing in Sitka he tried to place a cap of 10,000
tons on sac roe herring in Sitka Sound. The aforementioned cap,
he noted, was the average for the previous 10 years. He
expressed concern that although ADF&G does the best it can with
the resources and funding it has, the department may not have
all the information. Other studies were presented to the Board
of Fisheries, including one from the Sitka Tribe that was in the
fourth year of a five-year study. He acknowledged that the
aforementioned study had not been subject to peer review, but
was from a company with quite a bit of science and utilized
fairly well-documented individuals. The study suggested that
the Sitka Sound herring stocks may be more vulnerable than the
department felt at the time. He mentioned that he followed
herring a bit because he was a herring fisherman back in the
1980s. He opined that herring is a species that can't afford a
mistake because it's low on the food chain, and thus many
species live off of herring. While the Sitka Sound herring may
appear to be strong, it's probably the last bastion, strong
stock, of herring in the Pacific Northwest. He opined that the
Sitka Sound herring stocks can't be lost. Mr. Johnstone opined
that it's not a coincidence that there's a decline in the
Chinook salmon and halibut resources in Southeast Alaska because
they "make a living on herring." Furthermore, although a few
people make quite a bit of money from the Sitka Sound herring
stocks, it's a short-lived fishery with short-term revenue. Mr.
Johnstone opined that the long-term outlook of the Sitka Sound
herring fishery is not good, and therefore he suggested a
conservative approach in which the stocks are built up as much
as possible. Although the vote to allow the fishery to continue
as scheduled prevailed, the threshold level required for the
fishery to take place was increased from 20,000 tons to 25,000
tons. He expressed concern that he viewed the Sitka Sound
herring stock as something that if it went away, it would likely
do so forever and he said he didn't want to take such a chance.
10:46:41 AM
CHAIR EDGMON provided Mr. Johnstone the opportunity to comment
on HB 117.
10:47:21 AM
MR. JOHNSTONE related his understanding that last October during
a workshop meeting by the Board of Fisheries, the location of
the Bristol Bay meeting was voted upon and Anchorage was
approved as the location. He further recalled that there was
another vote at the Cordova meeting during which the Anchorage
location was confirmed. He noted that he wasn't a member of the
Board of Fisheries at that time. However, at the last board
meeting he attended he and Ms. Williams submitted a guideline
policy regarding how to determine where to hold future meetings.
Mr. Johnstone related his preference to hold board meetings in
locations that are mostly impacted by the proposals to be heard
at the meeting, providing that the infrastructure and other
criteria required by the board can be met at that location.
10:50:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to advance the name of Mr. Johnstone
for confirmation to the Board of Fisheries to the [full
legislature for consideration]. There being no objection, it
was so ordered.
10:50:29 AM
CHAIR EDGMON restated his desire to have this hearing suffice if
Mr. Johnstone is reappointed for an additional three-year term
beginning July of 2009. He related his understanding that the
committee consents to the aforementioned.
10:51:03 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:51 a.m. to 10:54 a.m.
HB 117-BOARD OF FISHERIES MEETING LOCATION
10:54:04 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 117, "An Act relating to locations of the
meetings of the Board of Fisheries."
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of the prime sponsor,
Representative Edgmon, introduced HB 117. He explained that HB
117 would require the Board of Fisheries (BOF) to meet in a
certain region of the state when the primary topics/proposals on
the agenda relate to that particular region.
10:55:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt CSHB 171, Version 26-
LS0375\E, Kane, 3/25/09, as the working document.
CHAIR EDGMON objected.
10:55:32 AM
MR. CLARK explained that Version E simply tightens some of the
language in the legislation. For example, the language "the
only topic" is replaced by "for which the primary topic or
proposal." Version E also amends line 12 such that the language
"Chignik" is removed from the Kodiak regional area primarily
because of the lack of commercial air service between Chignik
and Kodiak. Chignik wasn't included as an area primarily
because of the lack of accommodations in Chignik. Mr. Clark
returned to his presentation of HB 117, and paraphrased from the
sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Alaska's Board of Fisheries meets four to six times
each year to consider proposals to change fisheries
regulations in regions around the state. The board
uses information from many sources when weighing such
proposals. They are guided by counsel from the
Department of Law; input from the Department of Fish &
Game; and even advice from the Department of Public
Safety.
Another critical source of information for the Board's
deliberations is the testimony of regional
stakeholders. Resident participants in a given
region's commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries
know best the practical ramifications of proposed
changes to fisheries regulations. Often this is
because such proposals can have their highest impact
on the lives and livelihoods of resident regional
stakeholders.
At present, the Board's record of holding meetings in
areas on its agenda is inconsistent. Too often such
meetings have been conducted in Anchorage, hundreds of
miles from the fisheries being considered.
To quote from a 2008 letter to the Board from Robert
Heyano of the Ekuk Village Council on Bristol Bay,
"Our residents and communities are challenged with a
cost of living that is among the highest in the state
of Alaska. The expense of travel to Anchorage, the
cost of hotels/food...make it impossible for most of
our residents to participate in the meetings if they
are held in Anchorage."
Passage of HB 117 will help ensure that the
inhabitants of regional communities have the
opportunity to offer face-to-face testimony to the
Board. In turn, the Board will benefit from the
clearest understanding of the viewpoints of those
whose local economies, livelihoods, and traditions are
most directly affected by its decisions.
10:59:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to how many meetings per year
would be impacted by this proposed change.
MR. CLARK reminded the committee that the Board of Fisheries
works on a three-year cycle in which different regions of the
state are addressed. The number of board meetings and
locations, he noted, are summarized in the committee packet. He
said that generally there are 6-10 board meetings per year.
11:00:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related her assumption that some meetings
would still be held in Anchorage, and questioned the impact of
HB 117 on the overall agenda. She then noted her support for HB
117.
MR. CLARK commented that meetings regarding the Cook Inlet
fisheries would be considered to be in the Anchorage region.
11:01:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to the meaning of the term
"primary" in HB 117.
CHAIR EDGMON explained that BOF meets on a three-year cycle and
the meeting cycles generally encompass a specific area. For
example, the Bristol Bay region meeting occurs every three years
and the last meeting was in December 2006, and therefore the
upcoming meeting is in December 2009. He reviewed some of the
areas of the state in which the board has met.
11:03:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired as to what happens if the topic
concerns more than one area, and asked if this legislation
invites legal action.
CHAIR EDGMON related his understanding that generally speaking
the meeting cycle encompasses the area about which the board is
meeting. However, it's not outside the purview of the board to
consider additional matters.
MR. CLARK added that typical meetings include scores of
proposals for changes in regulation or management policies for a
given fishery in a given region. The use of the word "primary"
refers to the central proposals at hand, such that housekeeping
measures would not result in adding a separate region to the
agenda.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON cautioned that housekeeping to one person
may be a primary issue to someone else. He opined that the
language is ambiguous and doesn't seem to move in the direction
the sponsor desires. Furthermore, the legislation seems to have
many loopholes leaving the language open to interpretation.
11:06:57 AM
JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director, Board of Fisheries, Board
Support Section, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
stated that neither the BOF nor ADF&G have taken an official
position on HB 117. He explained that during the three-year
cycle of the board, typically a non regulatory work session is
held in October during which organization takes place for the
upcoming meetings. The meetings are generally regional in
focus/scope. The last meeting of the year is usually in March
and it may be statewide in focus. He then directed attention to
the two-page BOF meeting list included in the committee packet,
which he described. He informed the committee that about two-
thirds of the regional meetings have been in compliance with the
spirit and directives of HB 117. However, about one-third of
the meetings haven't been in compliance with the spirit and
directives proposed in HB 117, for which there are often
reasons. For example, the board had a concentrated effort for
several years to fine tune a proposed Chignik co-op fishery.
Many of the participants in that proposed fishery are located in
Homer, Kodiak, Anchorage, and some in Chignik. The [board
determined] that having a meeting in Anchorage was the best for
the stakeholders. The overall pattern for Southeast and Cook
Inlet is basically in 100 percent alignment with HB 117.
However, Cook Inlet meetings are controversial and those in the
Mat-Su Valley would like to have meetings in Palmer or Wasilla
whereas those on the peninsula would like to have the meetings
in Kenai or Soldotna. The board has determined Anchorage to be
good middle ground for most folks. Mr. Marcotte pointed out
that Western Alaska is a challenge, as the charts illustrate
that there's a low compliance rate for the Alaska Peninsula
Aleutian Islands. It's very expensive to ship the necessary
equipment and personnel to locations on the Alaska Peninsula.
MR. MARCOTTE highlighted that much of the workload before the
Board of Fisheries is fine-tuning commercial fishing
regulations. The fish management plans impacting commercial
fishing are the ones that bring lots of folks to the meetings.
He agreed with the earlier comment that what may be just another
proposal for one person may be critical for another. The board
can also have public hearings outside of their regulatory
meetings at which three board members attend. He characterized
the aforementioned as an effort to reach out to the public. The
BOF has another valuable tool in the form of summer site visits,
which aren't part of the board's formal regulatory meetings.
The quality of information obtained from such meetings is often
quite excellent. Historically, the board has taken into account
budget limitations when meetings are set and they review what's
in the best interest of the state overall and all affected
stakeholders.
11:14:44 AM
MR. MARCOTTE pointed out that another aspect to the board
meeting pattern is the rotation of meeting locations, which
acknowledges that all stakeholder groups can't be pleased all
the time. Therefore, the Prince William Sound fin fish meeting
has alternated between Cordova and Valdez every other three-year
cycle. Similarly, the Arctic Yukon Kuskokwim meeting has
alternated between Fairbanks and Anchorage every three years
over the past few years. On any given meeting, issue, or
region, several factors come into play when the BOF uses its
best judgment regarding the location of a meeting. He clarified
that the location of the meetings are left to the board, and
staff merely present a tentative schedule of meetings with no
location specified. Mr. Marcotte said that although the BOF
appreciates the intent of HB 117, it views the legislation as
taking away some of the flexibility it exercises in trying to
balance the competing demands.
11:17:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT inquired as to the location of a meeting
with a primary topic such as salmon fin fish that would be
diverse and [have stakeholders] in Southeast Alaska as well as
the Bristol Bay area. Furthermore, when would such a meeting
supersede the board's cycle, she asked.
MR. MARCOTTE surmised that Representative Millet is referring to
the BOF's March meetings, which are statewide and thus wouldn't
be subject to the intent of HB 117. Furthermore, those meetings
aren't necessarily designed as regional meetings but rather are
statewide meetings; the board could have those meetings
wherever. Other meetings, such as the Southeast fin fish,
Southeast shell fish, or the Bristol Bay fin fish meetings are
regional and a target of HB 117.
11:18:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if the term "primary" in Version E
would change the BOF's cycle of meetings.
MR. MARCOTTE responded that it could have an impact on the
board's regular three year-cycle. However, it is difficult to
predict such. He reminded the committee that prior to the
three-year cycle, the board held statewide meetings on various
fisheries. During those statewide meetings, the board
discovered that the same players had to come in, which was
awkward and led the board to revamp its entire meeting schedule.
Mr. Marcotte suggested that [with the inclusion of the term
"primary"] the topics of the meetings and the three-year cycle
would likely remain, but the Alaska [Peninsula] fin fish meeting
would no longer be held in Anchorage as it may be held in
another location, such as Dutch Harbor or Sand Point.
Therefore, although the locations of the meetings would change,
the basic structure of the three-year cycle would remain.
11:20:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER recalled Mr. Johnstone's testimony
regarding a policy [to determine meeting locations], and asked
if it's a written policy. In terms of background, the BOF has
the power to develop regulations, which has a fiscal impact.
Therefore, he questioned whether the board could meet the spirit
of HB 117 if performed by the board itself.
MR. MARCOTTE clarified that at the last meeting the board did
adopt a set of guidelines to use to determine the sites of
future meeting locations. Those guidelines included whether the
community has jet or turbine service, cell phone service, high
speed Internet access, adequate facilities, hospitals, and
adequate ground transportation. The board would also take into
consideration the economic and cultural importance of the
meeting as well as the location and economic impact on
stakeholder travel. Furthermore, as technology has progressed,
people have become accustomed to different standards than those
of 5-10 years ago. For example, board members were frustrated
by a recent meeting in which they stayed in hotel rooms without
telephones, televisions, Internet access, or cell phone service.
Therefore, [the policy of the board] is defining the minimal
standards for a functional meeting.
11:23:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER restated his understanding that the BOF
can make its own regulations, which is driven by the budget
cycle.
MR. MARCOTTE pointed out that there is a fiscal note for HB 117,
the original version, and thus adjustments may apply [for
Version E]. The key role of the board is the allocation of the
resource not the administrative functions. Therefore, the board
can't dictate the department to perform research programs in
certain areas. The board can only change the fishing
regulations, he clarified. The board's decisions are based on
the best interest of the stakeholders, he said.
11:25:46 AM
CHAIR EDGMON asked if has been any research regarding the
guidelines other state boards use in determining meeting
locations. How were the guidelines developed for meetings in
rural areas, he asked.
MR. MARCOTTE responded that the BOF hasn't performed any
comprehensive analysis of what other boards and commissions do
to serve rural locations. Decisions have been in terms of what
operations are the best for the BOF meetings.
11:27:36 AM
CHAIR EDGMON asked if the language "best interest of all
stakeholders" is defined in regulation or statute.
MR. MARCOTTE replied no, there's no definition or directives
that inform the board regarding where to hold meetings or how to
set up its meeting cycle.
11:28:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to what a "primary topic"
would be.
MR. MARCOTTE answered that "primary topic" would be a challenge
to define. He indicated that measuring a topic in terms of a
percent basis, such as a specific percentage of proposals in a
specific region, would be more measurable. However, it would be
extremely problematic to measure the economic significance of
issues. Although the aforementioned is important to the board,
the board doesn't have staff economists and the board depends
upon the public to come forward with regard to the economic
importance of a fishery. That information is obtained at a
meeting, and therefore it would be difficult to obtain
information regarding the economic importance of a fishery in
advance of a meeting. He noted that even though the board is on
a three-year cycle, there are other avenues for topics to come
before the board under certain circumstances, such as those
topics that meet emergency petition criteria or an agenda change
request criteria. Therefore, the BOF often adds extra items to
its agenda. For example, the recent Sitka meeting scheduled a
Kodiak herring proposal due to timing.
11:31:01 AM
MR. MARCOTTE, in further response to Representative Johnson,
said that he didn't foresee cases in which meetings have a
particular geographic focus that becomes diverted such that a
different geographic focus results. He pointed out that the
meeting locations are established a year to a year-and-a-half in
advance in order to make arrangements. Therefore, a location is
scheduled prior to the date the call for proposals is issued and
hence prior to the board having any knowledge of the proposals.
11:32:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to why teleconferencing isn't
employed for testimony.
MR. MARCOTTE said that teleconference is a tool for the board.
There are no limitations in state statute or written policy or
regulations against teleconferences. He noted that the board
has used teleconferencing in a couple of cases, such as a recent
meeting in Cordova. He said there is potential for
teleconferencing to be used more in the future. However, he
opined that there's a trade-off between having many individuals
make a brief statement to help inform the board on a matter
versus being present and participating fully in the committee
process. Many of the more complex issues require a higher level
of involvement than a quick one-way oral comment, he remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON highlighted that the legislature often
takes testimony via teleconference as it allows those around the
state to have their say. He expressed the desire to avoid
suggesting that public testimony via teleconference isn't
adequate and shouldn't be considered.
11:36:16 AM
DAN O'HARA, Mayor, Bristol Bay Borough, began by relating his
belief that it's appropriate for the Board of Fisheries to hold
meetings in Naknek as [the Bristol Bay salmon fishery] is the
largest fin fishery known to mankind. Furthermore, Naknek can
accommodate BOF meetings. Naknek has Internet service, jet
service, restaurants, a hospital, and the capacity to house
those attending the meetings. He pointed out that it's cost
prohibitive for individuals to travel from Chignik to Anchorage.
Furthermore, the number of staff attending the meeting could be
reduced and those in Anchorage could attend the meeting via
teleconference. Mayor O'Hara opined that there's no reason the
board can't hold meetings in Naknek; the board should be in the
Bristol Bay area when making decisions on that resource. Mayor
O'Hara related his support for HB 177.
11:41:15 AM
ROBERT HEYANO testified in support of HB 117. He noted that the
committee packet should include his written remarks. He offered
that his interpretation of the term "primary" is to refer to
when the board is considering the regulatory cycle of each
region. He opined that most of the public would support having
those meetings in the region, while understanding that there
will be agenda change requests, emergency petitions, and board
generated requests that are out of cycle that will be held out
of the region.
11:43:42 AM
HANS NICHOLSON, Chairman, Nushagak Advisory Committee, said that
he didn't care where the BOF meeting is held, so long as it is
held somewhere in the bay. Residents of the Bristol Bay area,
he opined, aren't able to afford long distance travel, and it
does not serve them. Whenever the BOF has met in the area, it
has been very beneficial to the local economy and helpful in
educating participants in the board process. He related support
for HB 117 because it's important for those with the fishery in
their area to have the opportunity to comment on the proposals
that impact their lives and livelihood. The proposals, he
pointed out, cover a wide range of topics, including commercial
fishing issues, subsistence issues, and personal use issues. He
reiterated the high cost of participating in meetings held
outside the Bristol Bay area. Furthermore, the area has felt
left out of the loop when meetings have been held in Anchorage.
11:48:36 AM
FRANK WOODS, Commercial Fisherman, highlighted the need for
public engagement and pointed out that the regulatory process is
intimidating for many who aren't experienced in it, particularly
when meetings are held outside of the area. Mr. Woods said that
he believes in the public process and that one individual can
make a difference. Furthermore, he indicated that it's
beneficial to address issues impacting an area, such as the
extraction of resources from the area, in the impacted area. He
related his observation that there has been a steep decline in
public input. Passage of HB 117 will likely result in those in
the region being involved and a part of the process, and
therefore create a sense of ownership. Being involved also
makes people realize that they can make a difference. Mr. Woods
highlighted that Alaska is an urban state in that most of the
population lives in urban areas, and thus it's more cost
effective to hold meetings in those urban areas. However,
that's difficult for locals who already face an exodus of the
rural populations to the urban areas. The aforementioned
results in a disconnect between access and connection to the
resources of the state. In conclusion, Mr. Woods related his
support of a process that would engage more locals and Alaskans
while having easier access and a cost effective way of doing
business.
11:52:17 AM
TIEL SMITH, Resource Manager, Bristol Bay Native Corporation,
paraphrased from the following written testimony [original
punctuation provided]:
The Bristol Bay Native Corporation supports House
Bill 117 - Board of Fisheries Meeting Location. As
residents of the Bristol Bay Region, our shareholders
are impacted significantly by the matters considered
and decisions made by the Board of Fisheries. Because
of this significant impact and the importance of
fisheries to the Region, participation and input from
local residents is crucial to reaching the best
outcomes.
As fuel costs and living costs rise, especially
in rural Alaska, the number of residents able to
travel to meetings held in Anchorage falls. Holding
Board of Fisheries meetings in the particular regions
of the state when the proposals on the agenda relates
to those areas furthers the public process by allowing
the voice of those residents most significantly
impacted to be heard. As the regional corporation
representing shareholders of the Bristol Bay Region,
we know well the cost of holding meetings in various
locations around the state. However, we do just that
in order to better represent all of our shareholders,
rather than only those in our population centers. We
ask that the Board of Fisheries be required to do the
same, so that all residents of Alaska are better
represented.
11:54:41 AM
MONTE ROBERTS, Kenai River Professional Guides Association,
related his opposition to HB 117. He opined that the
teleconference today is an excellent example of how technology
can be used to bridge gaps while keeping costs down.
Additionally, the BOF is entrusted with making some very big
decisions. To that end, Mr. Roberts said he didn't know why the
BOF couldn't be trusted to make decisions regarding the location
of meetings. He suggested that perhaps video conferencing could
be utilized to address those people who want to actually see the
BOF.
11:56:20 AM
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association, echoed the importance of trusting the BOF to
develop policies that fit the circumstance of the board's
schedule. He opined that the board does a good job of
alternating meeting sites. He pointed out that not every person
who fishes in one of the regional fisheries is a resident of the
local community; sometimes they are a resident from another part
of the state. Furthermore, having meetings in Anchorage,
Fairbanks, or Juneau allows residents from a nonlocal region to
have input, which he characterized as important over time. Mr.
Gease stated that he would like implementation of the new policy
guidelines, such that cellular service, Internet access, and
adequate space for appropriate seating are required. These
issues, he opined, are best left at the BOF level. In terms of
public testimony, teleconference testimony should be
implemented, as well as video transmission. Information,
including RCs, should be made available digitally so that the
public as well as the board members can access it. Therefore,
he opined that it's incumbent on the legislature to provide
adequate funding to the BOF to move into the digital age with
all phases of the public process. Mr. Wood then related his
objection to not including the Copper River Valley as a meeting
area with the "Prince William Sound area" on line 13 of the
legislation. The Copper River Valley area has many issues that
deal with subsistence, personal use, and sport fishing, and
therefore to not include it is a grievous oversight. He
expressed the hope that the aforementioned would be amended in
this legislation as well as the intent language of the BOF's
operating budget.
12:01:51 PM
CHAIR EDGMON related his belief that today's conversation has
been valuable. He related his experience of having House
Special Committee on Energy meetings in rural locations this
session, and opined that the committee was much better off
having held the meetings in those locations. He further opined
that it's critical for government, whatever component, to be
available to the people of Alaska. Furthermore, the desire is
to have local public participation, he said.
CHAIR EDGMON announced that public testimony would be left open
for HB 117, which would have further hearings.
[HB 117 was held over, with the motion to adopt CSHB 117,
Version E, pending.]
12:03:52 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 12:04
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Board of Fish--JohnstoneCV.PDF |
HFSH 3/10/2009 10:15:00 AM HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
|
| HB117--AVCP Support.PDF |
HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 117 |
| HB117--CDFU Support.pdf |
HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 117 |
| HB117--Hans Nicholson.pdf |
HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 117 |
| HB117--Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 117 |
| HB117--BOF Meeting Location List (by region).pdf |
HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 117 |
| HB117--SWAMC Letter.pdf |
HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 117 |
| HB117--BBNA.PDF |
HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 117 |
| HB117--DraftCommitteeSubstitute.PDF |
HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 117 |
| HB117--Robert Heyano.PDF |
HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 117 |
| HB117--Bd of Fish Misc. Assumptions Guidlines.PDF |
HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 117 |
| HB117--BBNC.PDF |
HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 117 |
| HB117--UFA.PDF |
HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 117 |
| HB117--Wassiliisia Benes.pdf |
HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 117 |
| HB117-Fiscal Note DFG-BDS-3-24-09.pdf |
HFSH 3/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 117 |